Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Christ in Ancient Americas - A Compelling Evidence of the BOM's Authenticity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    No, it's a classic Gish Gallop.
    It might be both actually....
    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
      Mere assertions lacking supporting evidence relegates your statements and responses as arrogant ignorant opinion hit piece.
      Actually, your gargantuan walls of text are simply mere assertions lacking supporting evidence, so....
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Roy View Post
        No, it's a classic Gish Gallop.
        Not sure about that. A Gish Gallop is to try to throw out as many arguments as possible regardless of their validity in order to prevent the opponent from responding to them all. The problem with TimothyRB's presentation of his arguments was being way too long-winded. Let's examine just the beginning of Dante's response and TimothyRB's counter-response for an example. Here was what Dante said:
        Originally posted by Dante View Post
        False. One of the main criticisms of the Book of Mormon is the extensive amount of egregious errors found in the Book of Mormon.
        https://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/...-of-Mormon.pdf
        In response to what was essentially a brief aside before Dante got into his main point, TimothyRB let off with this long-winded response:
        Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
        1. Statement and response to position one - exposing the Red Herring and Special Pleading:

        In the introduction paragraph:

        The Book of Mormon has always been a stumbling block for many evangelical Christians. Many attempts have given over to some interesting theories of how this text came about. One of the main criticisms is that there is no archaeological evidence to substantiate any people, person, place, or event recorded in the Book of Mormon text.

        The response to this is:



        The respondent provided a link to a paper written by Jon Gary Williams at Apologetics Press - titled THE BOOK OF MORMON: A BOOK OF MISTAKES, ERROR, AND FRAUD. It is regarding the textual criticism Evangelical Christians utilize in their attempt to diminish the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Granted, this is considered one of many main criticisms launched against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. It is not the de facto criticism. Also, the introduction of the egregious errors argument is considered a Red Herring Logical Fallacy.

        Red - Herring: Ignoratio elenchi
        (also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation) Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.


        This is common practice among those who may disagree with another person's position. By introducing another topic and argument, the attempt is made to focus more on the textual criticism argument of the Book of Mormon instead of focusing on the presenting argument itself.
        Not only is that a whole lotta text to essentially say nothing more than "don't change the subject," the charge of changing the subject is nonsensical here, because Dante then followed his comment up in his post by responding to TimothyRB's main assertion. Accusing someone of changing the subject to avoid dealing with the main point only works if they didn't actually address the main point. Even if TimothyRB doesn't believe Dante successfully disputed his main point (that of similarities between a historical account and what the Book of Mormon says), the charge of changing the subject is still wrong.

        One could perhaps say that Dante was unnecessarily snide with his remark, but any snideness in it was dwarfed by TimothyRB's tone in his responding post as if it was some kind of case study, e.g. referring to Dante as "the respondent" and "the individual".

        I suppose it's similar to a Gish Gallop in that the result (intentionally or not) can be to make someone give up arguing out of frustration, but it's not really quantity of arguments so much as it's simply quantity of text.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TimothyRB View Post
          [ATTACH=CONFIG]35578[/ATTACH]
          This Gish gallop is so chock full of blatant errors that even the most cursory of examinations would expose it is difficult to even know where to start.

          ETA: I see others have already noticed the similarities to the notorious tactic used by the late Duane Gish. Then again it is pretty obvious.
          Attached Files
          Last edited by rogue06; 03-10-2019, 06:14 AM.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #35
            Fortunately I've enough patience to separate the wheat from the chaff, and that is a lot of chaff.
            The fact that science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical principles has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles; while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics. - Karl Popper, 1987

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              This Gish gallop is so chock full of blatant errors that even the most cursory of examinations would expose it is difficult to even know where to start.

              ETA: I see others have already noticed the similarities to the notorious tactic used by the late Duane Gish. Then again it is pretty obvious.
              His voluminous arguments are obviously intended to obscure and confuse rather than enlighten. Compare it to Dante's efficient clarity.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #37
                Moderated By: Sparko


                From our rules - please read them all, you agreed to them.

                Post Length Considerations

                The maximum post length is 24K characters not including quoted material. Do not use multiple posts to circumvent this restriction. Please keep your points concise and limit the number of major points made in a debate/discussion to 1 or 2 per post max as this encourages discourse. Rebuttal posts get undesirably lengthy from both a writer's and a reader's perspective when there are too many points to address. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that same person (i.e. back-to-back responses to a single post are not allowed.)

                There is an edit button available for only 45 minutes after you make your post if you need to make additional comments or changes. It is best to make sure you have said everything you wish to say prior to posting and make use of the "preview post" option to locate any formatting problems. However, please do not make any edits to your post if someone has already replied to it. If you need assistance with this please do not hesitate to contact a moderator or administrator.

                ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.


                Comment


                • #38
                  Out of curiousity I tried using a word count tool to check how many words/characters I've used against his second attempt, and I've only used about 1824 words; 10,685 characters, in my rebuttals of both parts 1 & 2, combined.
                  The fact that science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical principles has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles; while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics. - Karl Popper, 1987

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Dante View Post
                    Out of curiousity I tried using a word count tool to check how many words/characters I've used against his second attempt, and I've only used about 1824 words; 10,685 characters, in my rebuttals of both parts 1 & 2, combined.
                    I think the only time we are concerned about the word count is when somebody gets nearly obscenely verbose, and does so over multiple posts, and is not really engaging in debate in good faith.

                    You've done an excellent job rebutting him, but he just blogs on. He needs to do that on his own dime.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      We are just against elephant hurls and blogging. This is a discussion site and the only way to have a real debate is to keep the posts concise and short. People can always move on to more points later.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        There are two separate arguments contained in this faulty statement. First, is the presentist viewpoint, and the second is the conclusion of engaging in human sacrifices. Neither account provides any information regarding human sacrifices. That is an inference the respondent provides within the context of comparing the two accounts. Therefore, there is no need to address this. What will be addressed is the first part of the response to determine whether or not the comparison of the two accounts are reflective of the same event and person of that event.

                        In Pedro de Cieza de Leon's account, we read:

                        Things being in this state, the sun, shining very brightly, came forth from the island of Titicaca, in the great lake of the Collao, at which every one rejoiced
                        Having read the original native American story (if that is what it was), I can state quite confidently that Christ was not crucified during Noah's time - a necessary condition for the story in the book of Mormon to have a connection with the native American story (if that is what it was).
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          We are just against elephant hurls and blogging. This is a discussion site and the only way to have a real debate is to keep the posts concise and short. People can always move on to more points later.
                          But, to paraphrase an old expression, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with horsie poo". And lots of it!
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            We are just against elephant hurls and blogging. This is a discussion site and the only way to have a real debate is to keep the posts concise and short. People can always move on to more points later.
                            Yup. Just present what you think is your strongest piece of evidence (or two). We can go from there.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Yup. Just present what you think is your strongest piece of evidence (or two). We can go from there.
                              Maybe we can get to the burning in the bosom.

                              Or the non-existent gold plates.
                              Or the kinderhook scandal.
                              Or the Bank fraud.

                              If "Christ in ancient Americas" is his best defense of Mormonism.....
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Maybe we can get to the burning in the bosom.

                                Or the non-existent gold plates.
                                Or the kinderhook scandal.
                                Or the Bank fraud.

                                If "Christ in ancient Americas" is his best defense of Mormonism.....
                                I'm kinda hoping he brings up the massive battle on Hill Cumorah.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X